Benefits and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening: A protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

BMJ Open (Impact Factor: 2.27). 01/2014; 4(2):e004508. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004508
Source: PubMed


Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a serious health problem worldwide. While screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, participation in screening tests is generally suboptimal and social inequities in participation are frequently reported. The goal of this review is to synthesise factors that influence an individual's decision to participate in CRC screening, and to explore how those factors vary by sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
A primary search of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and a secondary search of grey literature and articles taken from references of included articles (from inception to July 2013).
A systematic review and Meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies that address perceived benefits and barriers to participation in CRC screening tests among adults 50 years of age or older.
The two-staged Meta-study methodology by Paterson will be used to conduct this review. In stage 1, similarities/differences, patterns and themes will be identified across three levels of analysis while preserving the context of original studies. In stage 2, synthesis will extend beyond the analysis to generate new theory of the phenomenon through a process called Meta-synthesis.
This review offers to generate a framework to better understand benefits and barriers that affect decision-making to participate in CRC screening among different sectors of the population. This framework will be a relevant tool for policy makers in framing educational materials, for patient-centered communication, and for researchers interested in the science of equity. This review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42013005025).

Download full-text


Available from: Gladys Honein, Mar 27, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The big gap between efficacy of population level prevention and expectations due to heterogeneity and complexity of cancer etiologic factors calls for selective yet personalized interventions based on effective risk assessment. This paper documents our research protocol aimed at refining and validating a two-stage and web- based cancer risk assessment tool, from a tentative one in use by an ongoing project, capable of identifying individuals at elevated risk for one or more types of the 80% leading cancers in rural China with adequate sensitivity and specificity and featuring low cost, easy application and cultural and technical sensitivity for farmers and village doctors. The protocol adopted a modified population-based case control design using 72, 000 non-patients as controls, 2, 200 cancer patients as cases, and another 600 patients as cases for external validation. Factors taken into account comprised 8 domains including diet and nutrition, risk behaviors, family history, precancerous diseases, related medical procedures, exposure to environment hazards, mood and feelings, physical activities and anthropologic and biologic factors. Modeling stresses explored various methodologies like empirical analysis, logistic regression, neuro-network analysis, decision theory and both internal and external validation using concordance statistics, predictive values, etc..
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 01/2014; 15(24):10683-90. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.24.10683 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols-PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.
    BMJ Clinical Research 01/2015; 349(jan02 1):g7647. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective prevention against cancers depends heavily on sustained individual efforts practicing protective behaviors and avoiding risk factors in a complex sociocultural context, which requires continuous and personalized supports. Contemporary prevention relies primarily on strategies targeting general population with limited attention being paid to individualized approaches. This study tests a novel package called, in acronym of core intervention components, eCROPS-CA that leverages protective behaviors against over 80% leading cancers among high risk individuals via continuous and tailored counseling by village doctors. The study utilizes a quesi-RCT design involving 4320 high risk individuals selected, via rapid and detailed risk assessments, from about 72,000 farmers aged 35+ in 36 administrative villages randomized into equal intervention and delayed intervention arms. The intervention arm receives baseline and semiannual follow up evaluations plus eCROPS-CA for 5 years; while the control arm, only the baseline and follow-up evaluations for the first 5 years and eCROPS-CA starting from the 6(th) year if the intervention is proved effective. eCROPS-CA comprises electronic supports and supervision (e), counseling cancer prevention (C), recipe for objective behaviors (R), operational toolkit (O), performance-based incentives (P), and screening and assessment (S). Evaluation measures include: incidence and stage of the leading cancers, cancer-related knowledge, attitudes and practices; easy biophysical indicators (e.g., body mass index, blood pressure); intervention compliance, acceptance of the package. The prevention package incorporates key success factors in a synergetic way toward cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability. It targets a set rather than any single cancer; choses village doctors as key solution to the widespread lack of professional manpower in implementing personalized and thus relatively sophisticated prevention; adopts real-time monitoring in reaching continuous improvement; utilizes smart web aids to enable prioritizing complex determinants of objective behaviors, linking counseling sessions happened at different time points and hence delivering highly coordinated prevention; uses 2-stage risk assessment models in identifying high risk individuals so as to focus on the most needed; applies standardized operation procedures in simplifying and smoothing behavior intervention yet ensuring delivery of essential steps and key elements. ISRCTN33269053.
    BMC Cancer 04/2015; 15(1):233. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1253-6 · 3.36 Impact Factor
Show more